You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why is "for-profit" not bad? - Arguments against Etatism/ Interventionism and for Austrian School/ Agorism

in #economy6 months ago (edited)

stop defending people who "can't math" or as I say don't want to learn and grow up

everyone needs to take self-responsibility

learning math and basic market economy isn't hard.
with freedom of contract, private property (which can't be taken away if we abolish theft) and the will to create wealth, you can do that

but atm they tax and regulate you to death

we finally need real capitalism/ free market economies, not that market intervening or etatist robbery shit.

you should read marx. and then inform yourself how they starved in ussr cuz they've expropriated the farms from the evil capitalists and gave them to people without knowledge

they had land, farm, all machines and even got money from the communists to buy what they need.
noone knew what to do, how to handle a farm, they just took what they saw and when there was nothing left they left and the starving started

have you read mises and hayek? they are pillars of austrian school

I don't believe you that, cuz if so, you'd know

and that's not just philosophy like ancap, ancom, kropotkin etc
but real methodical science


I and We

The Ego is the unity of the acting being. It is unquestionably given and cannot be dissolved or conjured away by any reasoning or quibbling.
The We is always the result of a summing up which puts together two or more Egos. If somebody says I, no further questioning is necessary in order to establish the meaning. The same is valid with regard to the Thou and, provided the person in view is precisely indicated, with regard to the He. But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who are comprised in this We. It is always single individuals who say We; even if they say it in chorus, it yet remains an utterance of single individuals.
The We cannot act otherwise than each of them acting on his own behalf. They can either all act together in accord; or one of them may act for them all. In the latter case the cooperation of the others consists in their bringing about the situation which makes one man's action effective for them too. Only in this sense does the officer of a social entity act for the whole; the individual members of the collective body either cause or allow a single man's action to concern them too.
The endeavors of psychology to dissolve the Ego and to unmask it as an illusion are idle. The praxeological Ego is beyond any doubts. No matter what a man was and what he may become later, in the very act of choosing and acting he is an Ego.
From the pluralis logicus (and from the merely ceremonial pluralis majestaticus) we must distinguish the pluralis gloriosus. If a Canadian who never tried skating says, “We are the world's foremost ice hockey players,” or if an Italian boor proudly contends “We are the world's most eminent painters,” nobody is fooled. But with reference to political and economic problems the pluralis gloriosus evolves into the pluralis imperialis and as such plays a significant role in paving the way for the acceptance of doctrines determining international economic policies.

out of Human Action by Mises

Freud was a coke dealing fraud.
He did a good job with defining behaviors, but his aim was not the improvement of the average.
I can point you to better material.

Build your castle on sand, don't be surprised when the water washes it away.

dude?! why are you talking about freud now?!

and no I don't agree. but please talk about mises when I show you something by mises..

Your demigod was quoting freud,...


If everyone took his share of production, and if production were socialised — as political economy, if it aimed at the satisfaction of the ever-growing needs of all, would advise us to do — then more than one half of the working day would remain to everyone for the pursuit of art, science, or any hobby he or she might prefer; and his work in those fields would be the more profitable if he spent the other half of the day in productive work — if art and science were followed from mere inclination, not for mercantile purposes. Moreover, a community organised on the principles of all being workers would be rich enough to conclude that every man and woman, after having; reached a certain age — say of forty or more — ought to be relieved from the moral obligation of taking a direct part in the performance of the necessary manual work, so as to be able entirely to devote himself or herself to whatever he or she chooses in the domain of art, or science, or any kind of work. Free pursuit in new branches of art and knowledge, free creation, and free development thus might be fully guaranteed.. And such a community would not know misery amidst wealth. It would not know the duality of conscience which permeates out life and stifles every noble effort. It would freely take its flight towards the highest regions of progress compatible with human nature.

"if if if if if all are kind and work as I say they should and everything was socialised and political.... we had utopia"

do it. just do it. and stop getting on the nerves of people working for free and open, self-regulating markets

you should have something to do. but that's not what people want.

It would freely take its flight towards the highest regions of progress compatible with human nature.

yaya. it would just be utopia - for everyone. without knowledge at all..

this last sentence just shows why praxeology is so important.
Just read human action by mises or don't, I don't even care.
Everyone is the architect of his own fortune